I even offered a truce to get her to STFU, but it went ignored. You would think that she would learn after her ban. Instead she comes back with all the responses that she missed out on responding to while she was banned.

Same, it's just reigniting old arguments. She literally thought she "peeped" my "game" but when I respond with receipts about the lip syncing, there's no response. Everything is so annoying about her, from the condescending tone, constant abuse of "goats", obsession with Stella, worshipping terrible Mariah outfits down to her coined terms and slangs like "Besos", "foiled", "Tommy Controlla". She's both amusing and obnoxious

To me, I think SPS would be more valid if they measure not the biggest single off the album, but by the least popular track (not counting some under-minute long interlude cut) since I think that would truly measure the consumption of an album as opposed to pretending that Lukas Graham's 100k selling album is a hit just because people liked one single.

To me, I think SPS would be more valid if they measure not the biggest single off the album, but by the least popular track (not counting some under-minute long interlude cut) since I think that would truly measure the consumption of an album as opposed to pretending that Lukas Graham's 100k selling album is a hit just because people liked one single.

Excluding the most popular and the least popular song would also be ok for me, I wouldn't count streaming to B200 at all.

To me, I think SPS would be more valid if they measure not the biggest single off the album, but by the least popular track (not counting some under-minute long interlude cut) since I think that would truly measure the consumption of an album as opposed to pretending that Lukas Graham's 100k selling album is a hit just because people liked one single.

Excluding the most popular and the least popular song would also be ok for me, I wouldn't count streaming to B200 at all.

I agree. I think it's only been done because sales are so low that you can go top 10 without even selling 10k.

But I do feel like SPS is way too lopsided in favor of radio artists with one big hit single that makes some album that may be selling 6000 copies a week look like it's moving 50k when the reality is nobody is checking for the rest of the album, they just want to hear the hit. Which to me separates album artists (Taylor, Adele, Beyonce, etc...) from singles artists that nobody literally cares to hear anything besides the singles. Measure the popularity of an album not from the smash single but from the track that's literally selling and streaming the least as a more respectable barometer of where the ALBUM is in terms of popularity.

I wonder with SPS and everything if Taylor's going to suck it up when her next album comes out and moves with the 21st century since not having SPS on her side will hurt her precious chart performance. Even Prince's estate is putting his music back on streaming sites because they realize they're losing a lot of money by not making his work available outside of Tidal.

MrDiva wrote:so basically you guys want germany's system to deal with streamingthey exclude the 2 highest and the 2 lowest songs off

Definitely. A big hit shouldn't inflate the album's chart position because a hit song doesn't automatically mean people are checking for the album itself. It didn't in any other decade either, there's always been big hits with albums nobody wants to buy, just now it's a big hit with 11 other tracks nobody wants to stream.

I think changing the certs would be a disaster because so many stanbases will demand fairness.

Plus, record labels are too cheap to pay for certs for albums that even sell that many copies. The days of the 90s where an album was at 2 million sold and they already paid for a 5m cert because the label was confident the album would eventually reach that number are long gone... even people like Taylor seem to be delayed in getting certs. 1989 was still certified 4x when it had already scanned over 5m, the days of the labels jumping on it and 10-20 albums were getting new certs every week are over, the labels frankly don't care about certs anymore.

NothingFails wrote:I think changing the certs would be a disaster because so many stanbases will demand fairness.

Plus, record labels are too cheap to pay for certs for albums that even sell that many copies. The days of the 90s where an album was at 2 million sold and they already paid for a 5m cert because the label was confident the album would eventually reach that number are long gone... even people like Taylor seem to be delayed in getting certs. 1989 was still certified 4x when it had already scanned over 5m, the days of the labels jumping on it and 10-20 albums were getting new certs every week are over, the labels frankly don't care about certs anymore.

well, the label must have sold 5 million units of the album to an actual retailer for it to be certified - so in the 90's not only the label needed to be confident in it selling that much, but retail also. That's how albums are certified.

BTW I've never come across an instant in which an album lost certs due to not fullfilling expectations and copies being sent back to the labels.

MrDiva wrote:so basically you guys want germany's system to deal with streamingthey exclude the 2 highest and the 2 lowest songs off

Definitely. A big hit shouldn't inflate the album's chart position because a hit song doesn't automatically mean people are checking for the album itself. It didn't in any other decade either, there's always been big hits with albums nobody wants to buy, just now it's a big hit with 11 other tracks nobody wants to stream.

NothingFails wrote:I think changing the certs would be a disaster because so many stanbases will demand fairness.

Plus, record labels are too cheap to pay for certs for albums that even sell that many copies. The days of the 90s where an album was at 2 million sold and they already paid for a 5m cert because the label was confident the album would eventually reach that number are long gone... even people like Taylor seem to be delayed in getting certs. 1989 was still certified 4x when it had already scanned over 5m, the days of the labels jumping on it and 10-20 albums were getting new certs every week are over, the labels frankly don't care about certs anymore.

well, the label must have sold 5 million units of the album to an actual retailer for it to be certified - so in the 90's not only the label needed to be confident in it selling that much, but retail also. That's how albums are certified.

BTW I've never come across an instant in which an album lost certs due to not fullfilling expectations and copies being sent back to the labels.

The biggest one I could think of was BSB's Black And Blue, which was released in the Christmas season and everyone expected it to smash since it was following two albums that sold over 10m in the US on pure sales, it was automatically certified 8x platinum after a month, even though the sales collapsed once the Christmas season was over (I remember the album falling from #2 to #9 in one week and it never went back up) and the album only scraped a little past 5m... but Jive was so certain that 8 million was going to happen.

I've never seen an album lose certs either, but it does seem like nowadays with sales much lower than before, the labels don;t have as much expendable petty cash to pay for certs even when Soundscan figures are available and show the album has sold more than enough to be gold or platinum. The fact that they took so long to recertify Taylor's album shows how far times have changed, in previous days the second the album reached 4x, they'd go ahead and certify it 5x, and so on.